The background to the complaint concerned Ms Elder’s conduct while acting for a party in a relationship property settlement matter. Ms Elder drafted the settlement agreement and sent it to the opposing party’s lawyer on 1 April 2021. That firm returned the document, executed and certified, on 28 April 2021. To complete the matter, Ms Elder had to attend to her client for the purpose of certifying and executing the agreement. Ms Elder was then required to prepare the documents to put into effect a share transfer and resignation as director of the other party in relation to the company which was to be retained by her client. That involved simple documentation of a resolution, resignation, share transfer and registration of those documents. Despite numerous attempts by the opposing party’s lawyer to contact Ms Elder and progress the matter, the executed agreement and company documents were not provided until 3 March 2023, almost two years later. Ms Elder only completed the work after she was advised a complaint had been made against her to The New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa.

Ms Elder accepted that her conduct was unsatisfactory but denied it was negligence or misconduct. The Tribunal considered Ms Elder’s failure to progress the matter for two years and her failure to respond to several requests from the other firm demonstrated a reckless disregard for her professional obligation to act in a timely and competent manner and therefore was misconduct. The Tribunal noted Ms Elder had previously been found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in 2011 when her failure to progress a matter resulted in one year’s delay. It noted, “when lawyers fall into error, under pressure of work and by poor prioritisation, some leniency may be appropriate on the first occasion (provided no actual harm has been caused). However, after leniency has been granted on one or more occasions, the lawyer can expect a far more critical response from his or her disciplinary bodies.” The Tribunal held that the conduct showed a lack of discipline that “risked undermining the reputation of the profession as a whole.”

The Tribunal then turned to penalty, noting modest fines in the past had not deterred Ms Elder from falling into the same pattern of inaction. It determined that the fine “must be sufficiently high to meaningfully mark the Tribunal’s concern about the practitioner’s pattern of requiring intervention.” Ms Elder was fined $10,000, censured, ordered to pay compensation to the complainant, and ordered to engage in a mentoring arrangement for a period of 12 months. Ms Elder was also ordered to pay costs.